New Bern and the Civil War

Back last year, I wrote a column on how Greensboro and Guildford County were the most written-about locations in North Carolina during the war. With five books on the subject, I still hold to that. But New Bern, I believe, is the most-illustrated part of North Carolina during the war.

New Bern, scenes of battle, 

Harper's Weekly, April 19, 1862. 

Following a battle just south of the town, Federal forces captured New Bern in March 1862. They held it for the remainder of the war, and often used it as a staging area for raids toward the east. Even though parts of New Bern were burned during the Confederate retreat, large portions of the colonial capital survived.

New Bern, Craven Street, ca. 1863  in the North Carolina County Photographic Collection #P0001, North Carolina Collection Photographic Archives, The Wilson Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Masonic Hall, New Bern, ca. 1863  in the North Carolina County Photographic Collection #P0001, North Carolina Collection Photographic Archives, The Wilson Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Middle Street, New Bern, ca. 1863  in the North Carolina County Photographic Collection #P0001, North Carolina Collection Photographic Archives, The Wilson Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

New Bern, reception of Edward Stanley, 

Harper's Weekly, July 19, 1862. 

There were wood-cut illustrations of the battle of New Bern, along with scenes of the city itself, over the next few years in various newspapers from the North. And, there were photographs as well. Photographer E. J. Smith visited the two in 1863. The North Carolina Collection Photographic Archives at UNC-Chapel Hill has 27 carte-de-visite prints attributed to Smith taken in New Bern. These, coupled with the newspaper illustrations, make New Bern the most illustrated place during the 1860s. 

The Squabble over Light Division command at Gettysburg

At the recent Emerging Civil War symposium, I was chatting with Gettysburg Guide Matt Atkinson, and he told me of an account of generals squabbling over who should lead the Light Division after Pender's wounding on day 2 of Gettysburg.

So I tracked down the source: Writing and Fighting the Confederate War: The Letters of Peter Wellington Alexander, Confederate War Correspondent. Alexander was born in Georgia, a graduate of the University of Georgia, a lawyer and newspaper reporter. He was the war correspondent for the Savannah Republican. The book was edited by William B. Styple and contains 200 letters that Alexander wrote for various newspapers.

William Dorsey Pender

On July 4, 1863, Alexander wrote a very long piece on the battle of Gettysburg. He goes into detail about the attack on the Confederate right on July 2. Alexander writes: "Mahone, on the other hand, declined to proceed unless Posey and Pender's division on his left should do so at the same time. Upon this fact being made known to Pender he rode forward to examine the ground, when he received a wound and was disabled. The question then arose amongst his Brigadiers as to who was the senior officer, and this point was not settled until about sunset." (164)

William Dorsey Pender took command of the Light Division after the promotion of A. P. Hill following the battle of Chancellorsville. In the reorganization of the Army of Northern Virginia, the Light Division was reduced from six to four brigades. Brian Wills, in his recent biography of Pender, makes no mention of Mahone in connection with day 2 at Gettysburg. Pender was ordered to support Rodes or Anderson's divisions if the "attack became general." But the attack never quite happened, and Pender was left to supervise skirmishers to his front. According to Wills, in an effort to get a better view of the terrain, Pender "rode the lines" and "dismounted and perched atop a boulder, from which he hoped to give himself a better vantage point." While on this boulder, a "Union shell suddenly burst nearby" and a piece of shell "tore into Pender's thigh." (233-34)

Lane would write that he observed Pender riding to his right late in the day on July 2.

The Light division consisted of Lane's North Carolina brigade, Brig. Gen. Edward L. Thomas's Georgia brigade, McGowan's brigade, under Col. Abner M. Perrin, and Scales's brigade, under Brig. Gen. Alfred M. Scales. At the time, right to command was based upon seniority of rank, or, who had held that rank the longest. Lane's promotion to brigadier general dated to November 1, 1862. Alfred Scale's promotion was dated June 13, 1863. He was also wounded on day 1 and replaced by Col. William J. Lowrance. Now to Edward Thomas, whose promotion to brigadier general also dated to November 1, 1862.

So, if there is an argument, it is between Lane and Thomas. If I understand the ranking question, next, the generals would have looked at who was at the previous grade the earliest. Thomas was promoted colonel of the 35th Georgia Infantry on October 15, 1861. It was his first command of the war. Lane served as major and then lieutenant colonel of the 1st North Carolina volunteers, and was promoted to colonel of the 28th North Carolina Troops on September 15, 1861. Lane was clearly senior to Thomas.

There is a lot of discussion about the Light Division not coming to support of the troops doing battle on the evening of July 2. Was that Lane's fault? What we really lack is a timeline. When was Pender wounded? When did Lane learn that he was in command? Just how aware was he of where the other brigades were posted, and of the plan for the day?

There are two things that throw the whole debate over seniority into question. Lane writes in his official report of the battle of Gettysburg that "Capt. Norwood, of Genl. Thomas's Staff, that Genl. Pender had been wounded & that I must take command of the division..." If Lane and Thomas had been arguing over who had seniority, then there was no need for a staff officer to inform Lane of who was in command.

The second piece comes from Peter Wellington Alexander. He recants the whole story. On July 26, 1863, Alexander writes: "I was led into an error in regard to the cause of the delay of Pender's division in going into the action on the second day at Gettysburg. The delay did not arise from any squabble among the brigadiers after his fall as to seniority in rank. On the contrary, that point had been settled at Fredericksburg to favor of Gen. Lane, to whom Pender turned over the command immediately after receiving his death wound. (178)

I wonder if Alexander witnessed any of this......... 

Two Great Attacks

This past weekend, I had the chance to attend the Emerging Civil War conference in Spotsylvania, Virginia. The theme for the event was "Great Attacks of the Civil War," and that got me to thinking: what were the great attacks in the Civil War in North Carolina?

Now it would be easy to put the assault of Hardee's and Stewart's men at Bentonville, or Ames' Division at Fort Fisher. But what came to mind are two much smaller affairs, that had greater repercussions.

The first of my two "Great Attacks" takes place in 1861. Forts Clark and Hatteras were constructed either side of Hatteras Inlet not long after North Carolina left the Union. They were meant to keep the Federals out of the Pamlico Sound. On August 28, 1861, Federal naval ships bombarded Fort Clark. Unable to return fire due to the range, Confederate forces fled to Fort Hatteras. Fort Clark was captured, and the Union naval vessels turned their attention toward Fort Hatteras. After several hours of intense bombardment, the fort surrendered, and 700 Confederates became prisoners of war. The loss of these two installations opened the Pamlico Sound to the Union navy and army. Roanoke Island fell in February 1862, the battle of New Bern was fought in March 1862, and Fort Macon fell on April 26, 1862. Later, Federal soldiers set out on raids against Kinston, and battles were fought at Wyse's Fork (this is a short list), all because these two small forts fell in August 1861.

George Kirk

My second pick is on the other end of the state. In June 1864, then Capt. George W. Kirk led a small band of men, about 120, mostly from the 2nd North Carolina Mounted Infantry (US), on a raid against Camp Vance just east of Morganton in Burke County. The capture of the camp and the skirmishes (maybe three or four), fought between Kirk and various home guard elements as the Federals attempted to flee back to east Tennessee, are minor in the grand pantheon of Civil War battles. However, Kirk's Raid showed many that with the Confederate abandonment of east Tennessee, the back door to the heart of the Confederacy was wide open. Federal raiding parties could move through the area, and even into upstate South Carolina and the mountains of north Georgia. More importantly, family began to write their loved ones in the army in earnest, imploring them to come home and offer some level of protection against the murdering parties stripping the countryside blind. Kirk's Raid kicked into high gear a war-within-a war in western North Carolina, and caused further desertions among the Tar Heel Confederate soldiers in the Army of Northern Virginia and the Army of Tennessee.

So there you have it: the loss of Forts Clark and Hatteras and Kirk's Raid, my two "Great attacks" in North Carolina in terms of effectiveness. What would your great attacks be? 

Looking for James H. Lane's pardon

I really don't like unanswered questions. However, delving into the murky past provides me with scores, nay, hundreds of unanswered questions.  Writing the book on the Branch-Lane brigade is no exception. I would still like to know what flag was issued to the brigade on the eve of the Seven Days campaign. I'd still like to know just how far to the left the 33rd NC was at the battle of Second Manassas. Just why did Lane and some of his lieutenants go into the fight on the afternoon of May 12, 1864, unarmed? Maybe in time, I will find these answers. Nevertheless, this project is just about finished for me.

Of course, there are several instances where I have made some pretty good finds - like information on the role of the brigade on day two at Gettysburg, and Lane's personal observation about Appomattox. Some really good stuff you will not find in other places.

There is, however, one piece I am still seeking: James H. Lane's pardon.

Lane wrote his letter on July 10, 1865, from Matthews County, Virginia, the home of his parents. The letter is short, just one page.

"I respectfully make application for pardon under your amnesty proclamation of May 29, 1863, and ask to be restored to all the rights of a citizen of the United States. I entered the Confederate service from the State of North Carolina, and served as a Brigadier General in the Provisional Army of the Confederate States from the 1st of November 1862 to the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia. I am without property and without money. My address is Norfolk, Va Care of Mr. William R. Hudgins."

There is just one other piece - on July 11, 1865, Lane went before the provost marshal and took the Oath of Allegiance. Missing is the date Lane was granted his pardon.

Lane, post-war, with cloth covering the buttons on his Confederate coat. 

In trying to find Lane's pardon, I came across an article entitled "The Soldier's Burden: A Study of North Carolina Confederate Officer Request for Amnesty." According to the article, US President Andrew Johnson issued a Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction on May 29, 1865. Former Confederate soldiers were all pardoned, unless they fell into one of fourteen classes. Lane, serving as a brigadier general, was excluded and had to write the president, through the governor, asking to be pardoned. Lane should have sent his letter to North Carolina governor W. W. Holden, although nothing in the file indicates this.

There were thousands of applications that flooded into Washington City. Johnson was slow on pardoning Confederate officers. While there does not appear to be evidence that Lane ever did, other former Confederate officers frequently wrote friends in Washington City, inquiring about their application and asking for intervention.

President Johnson, in an attempt to speed up Reconstruction, pardoned all but men who fell into three classes on September 7, 1867. Men who had served as Confederate brigadier generals were still in the unpardoned class. On July 4, 1868, Johnson granted amnesty to all former Confederates, except a group of 300, who were under indictment in United States courts under the charge of treason or other felonies. Johnson issued his final mass pardon on December 25, 1868.

As far as I can tell, James H. Lane should have been pardoned on July 4, 1868. I've not found where he was under indictment, although he was once arrested and imprisoned at Fortress Monroe for incendiary speech. He was later released when it was discovered it was another man named Lane making the remarks.

But then again, I don't having anything that actually says Lane was pardoned on July 4, 1868. The search goes on..... 

More on the Laurel War

Last week, I posted excerpts from a letter that appeared in the Semi-Weekly Standard on April 17, 1863, dealing with events between Shelton Laurel in Madison County, and Greenville, Tennessee. The yet-to-be identified author was complaining of the "independent thieves, robbers and tories of Laurel." He lays out several events that took place over a period of 12-months:

1. "They shot and killed one man in his own house, stole and killed horses, robbed the Southern citizens of guns, bacon, meal, clothes, and everything they could lay their hands on." In response, the militia was called out. Some of the loyalists turned themselves in, and others were captured. Some joined the Confederate army.

2. After this event, one of the leaders of the Shelton Laurel band "shot a man down for acting as a guide for some of the forces that were marched into that settlement."

3. Those that had enlisted in the Confederate army eventually deserted, "and brought off their guns and ammunition..." A Federal officer arrived and organized the men into a company.

4. The company then commenced "robbing and plundering private houses in a settlement called 'Flag Pond,' in Washington county, Tennessee, taking money, guns, clothes, meat, and everything they could carry away, making women and children strip off their shoes, socks and clothes..."

5. Then came the raid on Marshall, "where they not only took salt, but they broke open store houses and dwelling houses, and carried off every thing that they could take away."

6. That same night, they robbed the Farnsworth home of "beds, furniture, and clothes..."

A year later, a new article appeared in the Asheville News (June 30, 1864). It was signed "Marshall" and included details about other activities centered in and around Madison County.  The "citizens of this section have suffered enormously, within the last twelve months, at the hands of the 'Laurel Tories," writes the author. "Scarcely a week has passed that has not witnessed the robbery of some poor soldier's family, or the murder of a good soldier or citizen." Some were on the verge of starvation; others had chosen to pick up and move. Like "Elbert's" account, the report of  "Madison" goes on to lay out some individual events.

1.  "Old Bill Shelton" led the group into Washington County where they killed a "landlord and his son, robbed the family of everything valuable... even stripped the clothing from the backs of children...."

2. To combat the Shelton gang, J. A. Keith, former lieutenant colonel of the 64th North Carolina Troops, organized a group known as "Keith's Detail." [It will be remembered that Keith was forced out of the 64th NC after the Shelton Laurel event in January 1863.]

3. Keith's men, serving without pay, were able to kill "two of the worst men living... Russ Franklin and Wiley Gosnell."

4. Keith was also able to catch "Old Bill Shelton," whom they hanged.

The author adds at the end that he could "name various other important duties performed by 'Keith's Detail,' but this article is already too long." Maybe "Madison" wrote the newspaper again about local events. Unfortunately, copies of the Asheville News are sparse after this date.

I don't copy these items trying to justify the actions of Keith. I do draw attention to these events to illustrate this point: there is a whole other war going on in the mountains of western North Carolina and eastern Tennessee.  It is a conflict waged beyond the limits imposed by the Articles of War and later, the Lieber Code. It is a very personal war.

On the road

I've not been out much lately-- trying to finish the Branch-Lane book and talking with a publisher about a new project. I do have a few dates in the next few weeks where I will be on the road:

July 30 - Ft. Fisher (below Wilmington)

August 2 - SCV Camp Fayetteville, NC

August 5/6 - Emerging Civil War Conference in Fredericksburg, Virginia

August 13 - Civil War Weekend at Tryon Palace State Historic Site (New Bern)

I hope to see you out and about! 

Who was Elbert?

In my last post, I copied a few lines from a scribe who simply signed his letter "ELBERT." Who was he? What interest did he have in the war going on in between Laurel Valley in Madison County and Flag Pond, then in Greene County? How was he trying to influence public opinion?

In the 19th century, authors were not required to sign their letters to newspapers. This might give an author an opportunity to be more honest, writing without fear of retaliation. One of the most famous cases in United States history of a newspaper correspondent not using his real name would be Benjamin Franklin's Silence Dogood letters. But while Franklin was simply adopting a persona that allowed him to express rather shocking and thought-provoking sentiments without getting personally involved, others had less lofty reasons for using pseudonyms; such anonymity could allow a person to libel someone else without fear of retaliation.  Since newspapers were not yet subject to legal punishment for such defamation, wronged parties might instead attack those they felt had impugned their characters.

After posting pieces of the article, I went back and looked for other letters from "ELBERT." Using newspapers.com, I found none.  I also looked through volume 2 of the papers of Zeb Vance, but I found none signed "ELBERT." Maybe one day we can find his identity.       

There are, of course, some who would totally discount the claims that ELBERT made, that the citizens of Flag Pond and Shelton Laurel were truly innocent victims, and not also perpetrators in an ever-escalating cycle of crime and violence. A reading into the history of the area quickly shows that the Laurel Valley area was one of the most lawless communities during the war. To quote the editor of the Asheville New in May 1862: "To say that the late difficulties in Madison were 'more imaginary than real,' is to write down the authorities of the counties of Madison and Buncombe, with Gen. Erwin as their head, a set of asses."    While that editor could, himself, be just as biased as ELBERT, these accounts do add further complexity and layers to an ugly chapter of history.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

Does this change your perspective on Shelton Laurel?

Recently, I found this piece, written in April 1863, about the Laurel War. Does it change your perspective? For a long time, the running story is that the bad Confederates kept the good Union people from getting salt. The good Union people raided the salt stores in Marshall one evening, breaking into a few stores and homes for good measure. The worst thing they did was to take blankets from the beds of sick children.  Soon thereafter, Confederate forces marched into Shelton Laurel, captured fifteen men and boys and marched them toward the Tennessee line. Before they had gone far, the Confederates lined them up and executed them. The youngest was 13. While there was some outcry, justice was never served on the Confederates. (This is the short version of the story.)

However, the piece below was written in April 1863 and appeared in a Raleigh newspapers:

"By this time [winter 1863], all who had volunteered from that country [Laurel], had deserted, and brought off their guns and ammunition, and commenced organizing companies, under the command, as they declared, of a Yankee officer, sent from Lincoln's government for that purpose. A company was raised of one hundred men, and they commenced robbing and plundering private houses in a settlement called "Flag Pond," in Washington county, Tennessee, taking money, guns, clothes, meat, and every thing they could carry away, making women and children strip off their shoes, socks and clothes for them, and left many families almost destitute of clothing, bedding or provisions. I did not learn that salt was the object of the thieves. Boys from ten to fifteen years of age were engaged in these robberies, and a gentlemen told me, whose house they robbed,        that they were the most active rogues in company. I did not hear of any salt  being taken.

The next depredation was committed at Marshal, Madison county, N.C., where they not             only took salt, but they broke open store houses and dwelling houses, and carried off everything that they could take away. They broke into A. E. Bair's dwelling house, a large, well-furnished boarding-house, and robbed it of all the blankets and other bed furniture. They also entered Col. L. M. Allen's dwelling house, and abused it at a great  rate-robbing it of all its furniture, and, I have heard made Mrs. Allen even strip off her under clothes, shoes and stockings for them to carry away. I did not hear that they got any salt there. On the same night, some distance from marshall, they entered A.           Farnsworth's house, robbed it of beds, furniture, and clothes, and emptied bed ticks of their contents, in order to pack their stolen goods in the ticks. I did not learn that those "independent, high minded" men packed any salt from there in the bed ticks." (Semi-Weekly Standard [Raleigh] April 17, 1863)

So, for a third time I ask, does this change your perspective on the supposed Shelton Laurel Massacre? There is so much more to this story. 

Thinking about books.

As I near the completion of the Branch-Lane manuscript, I think back about some of the secondary sources that have come out since I finished my first foray into the world of the Army of Northern Virginia in 2005. There have been some fantastic books released in the past 11 years, books that tremendously helped with the pursuit of writing a brigade history. Here are a few of them, not in order of importance, but in the order that I used them.

Probably the first outstanding book would be David S. Hartwig's To Antietam Creek: The Maryland Campaign of 1862 (2012). Hartwig's tome only covers the actions prior to the battle of Sharpsburg, all in 808 pages of detail-rich prose.

Tom Clemens has worked wonders on an old manuscript, The Maryland Campaign of September 1862 (2010-2016). There will be three volumes total. They were originally written by Army veteran Ezra Carman. The level of detail is great! Carman corresponded with both his fellow Union veterans, and Confederate veterans as well.

In the Gettysburg world, Kent Masterson Brown's Retreat from Gettysburg: Lee, Logistics, and the Pennsylvania is an incredible read. Brown's tome provides us with the most complete (to date) look into the way that Lee's army worked (or maybe at times, did not work), as it traveled to Gettysburg, and then worked its way back across the Potomac River.

Along those same lines, but with a different take, is Eric Wittenberg, Michael Nugent, and J. D. Petruzzi's One Continuous Fight: The Retreat from Gettysburg and the Pursuit of Lee's Army (2011). This book is detail rich, and combined with Brown's books above, along with Coddington, and the works of Pfanz, really complete the Gettysburg story.

The second and greatly expanded edition of Richard J. Sommer's Richmond Redeemed: The Siege at Petersburg, the Battles of Chaffin's Bluff and Poplar Springs, September 29-October 2, 1864 (2014) is fantastic. Almost 700 pages are devoted to four days, a part of the Petersburg Campaign that often gets lost in Grant's various attempts to take the Cockade City or capture Richmond.

Also a second edition is A. Wilson Greene's Breaking the Backbone of the Rebellion: The Final Battles of the Petersburg Campaign (2008). The original edition was really good. The level of detail added to the last two weeks or so of the Petersburg campaign is fantastic.

Falling on the heels of the breakthrough on April 2, 1865, was the battle of Battery Gregg. John Fox's Confederate Alamo: the Bloodbath at Petersburg's Fort Gregg on April 2, 1865, (2010) covers the afternoon of fighting on April 2. It is surprising that no one had ever looked at this battle in detail.

There you have it - thousands of pages of some of the best releases on campaigns in the eastern theater of the war, published since 2005. 

North Carolina Civil War County Histories, 2016 edition.

Friends, it's been almost two years since I've had reason to update the list I keep (and share) of works pertaining to North Carolina and the Civil War, county studies. McFarland recently released Robert C. Carpenter's Gaston County, North Carolina, in the Civil War. I look forward to getting a copy and reading it very soon.

If there is anything I have missed, any-stand alone book on a county or small geographical area, please drop me a line (or comment here) and help me get the list as up-to-date as possible.

Alamance County
Alexander County
Alleghany County
Anson County
Ashe County - Martin – Ashe County’s Civil War (2001)
Avery County
Beaufort County
Bertie County - Thomas – Divided Allegiances: Bertie County (1996)
Bladen County
Brunswick County
Buncombe County
Burke County
Cabarrus County
Caldwell County
Camden County
Carteret County - Kell – Carteret County During the Civil War (1999)
Caswell County
Catawba County
Chatham County
Cherokee County
Chowan County - Dillard – The Civil War in Chowan County (1911)
Clay County
Cleveland County
Columbus County
Craven County
Cumberland County
Currituck County
Dare County
Davidson County
Davie County
Duplin County
Durham County
Edgecombe County
Forsyth County
Franklin County
Gaston County - Carpenter - Gaston County, North Carolina, in the Civil War. (2016)
Gates County
Graham County
Granville County
Greene County
Guilford County
Halifax County
Harnett County
Haywood County
Henderson County - Garren - Measured in Blood (2012)
Hertford County - Parramore - Trial Separation: Murfreesboro, North Carolina, and the Civil War (1998)
Hoke County
Hyde County
Iredell County
Jackson County
Johnston County
Jones County
Lee County
Lenoir County
Lincoln County
Macon County
Madison County
Martin County - McCallum - Martin County During the Civil War (1971)
McDowell County
Mecklenburg County - Hardy - Civil War Charlotte (2012)
Mitchell County
Montgomery County
Moore County
Nash County
New Hanover County
Northampton County
Onslow County - Manarin - Onslow County and the Civil War (1982)
Orange County
Pamlico County
Pasquotank County - Meekins - Elizabeth City, North Carolina and the Civil War (2007)
Pender County
Perquimans County
Person County
Pitt County
Polk County
Randolph County
Richmond County
Robeson County
Rockingham County
Rowan County
Rutherford County
Sampson County
Scotland County
Stanly County
Stokes County
Surry County - Perry - "North Carolina Has Done Nobly": Civil War Stories From Mount Airy and Surry County. (2013)

Swain County
Transylvania County
Tyrrell County
Union County
Vance County
Wake County
Warren County
Washington County - Durrill - War of Another Kind (1994)
Watauga County - Hardy - Watauga County, North Carolina, in the Civil War (2013)
Wayne County
Wilkes County - Hartley - To Restore the Old Flag (1990)
Wilson County
Yadkin County - Casstevens – The Civil War and Yadkin County (1997)
Yancey County

Witnesses

   If you have spent much time on battlefields, then you are aware of witness trees, trees that were around during the battle and somehow survived not only the storm of shot and shell of battle, but also the blows of the lumberman's ax decades later. My personal favorite would be the Sycamore next to Burnside's Bridge on the Antietam battlefield.

   Recently, I was standing in the heart of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, right next

Gerrard Hall

to Gerrard Hall, and the idea came to me: these are survivors, just like the Witness Trees. Surprisingly, there are not a lot of surviving homes from the area. Yes, we could probably put together a long list of several hundred, or maybe a thousand structures here in North Carolina, but really, that is a small number considering that the 1860 population of the state was just over 992,000. Say an average of six people lived in each house (a number I pulled out of thin air), that should give us around 165,000 homes.

Burke County Courthouse

   Some of these sites are public buildings, like Gerrard Hall, the South Building, Old West Residence Hall,  Old East Residence Hall, and Person Hall. (There are also the New East and New West buildings, but were they finished before the war?)

   Some of these buildings are state historic sites, like Stagville in Durham County, the Harper House on the Bentonville Battlefield, and the State Capital in Raleigh.

   Others are local history museums, like the McElroy house in Burnsville, the Carson House in Old Fort, Fort Defiance near Lenoir, and Latta Plantation, near Charlotte.

   And some are still private residences, places that are still making memories for the families who call them home and who take considerable time and expense to keep them up.

Slave houses, Historic Stagville

   Over the years, I've had a chance to visit many of these places, sometimes as a simple guest, touring the house and grounds, and at other times, as a interpreter, trying to keep the history alive and passed on to future generations. 

On the Road 2016

Winter break is over, folks, and it is time to hit the road. Please feel free to come out and join me at one of these events. I'll be talking about North Carolina as the last Confederate Capital.

April 5, 2016 - Burlington, NC - Fisher Camp, SCV. They meet at F&W Cafeteria at exit 143, 6:00 pm.

April 6, 2016 - Fayetteville, NC - NC Civil War History Center. Meeting will take place at the Cumberland County Public Library, 7:00 pm.

April 10, 2016 - Whiteville, NC - Columbus County Volunteers Camp, SCV. They meet at Peace Baptist Church, at 2:00 pm.

The sad, cruel fate of war, or, the war-time life of Tod R. Caldwell.

   On May 11, 1865, Tod R. Caldwell wrote this letter to J. P. H Russ, W. R. Richardson "and others":

   Gentlemen: Your polite and kind invitation to attend and address a public meeting of the citizens of Wake County, proposed to be held this day in the City of Raleigh for the purpose of giving expression to our feelings on the occasion of our restoration to the Union and to the protection of the flag of our common county, has been received, and I must cordially thank you for the compliment. I deeply regret, however, my inability to be present, as I am compelled to hasten to my home in the west on important business which cannot be postponed. I shall nevertheless be present with you in sentiment and in sympathy and no one of the many spectators who will attend the meeting will hail with more delight that I do, the advent of peace and the deliverance of our people from the iron rule of tyranny and oppression. Let us all, then, with one accord, as good and loyal citizens, respect, and reverence, the glorious stars and stripes which are emblazoned upon our country's banner.

   Let us cherish it as our benefactor and deliverer from a worse than Egyptian bondage, and as a protector from insult and injury, both at home and abroad; let us return to our peaceful avocations determined to cultivate feelings of amity and brother's love toward the people of all sections of our country-to stand to and faithfully abide by the Union, the Constitution and the laws; and to stamp forever with the seal of our disapprobation, the miserable hearsay of secession, which has been the prolific source of so much distress and suffering to a once happy and prosperous people. 

While Caldwell might have kept a low profile in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains during the war years, the war came to his home as well. Caldwell had a son, John, who pleaded with his father for permission to join the army. Tod Caldwell finally consented, and John Caldwell enlisted in Company E, 33rd North Carolina Troops, on May 3, 1863. The younger Caldwell was just eighteen years old. He would serve a little less than two months in the Confederate army.

North Carolina Monument, Gettysburg. 

There are two stories regarding his death at Gettysburg. One takes place on the afternoon of July 2 on a picket line near Long Lane, or out in front of it. The other account has Caldwell dying on July 3 as Lane's brigade neared the Emmittsburg Road. There were several newspaper accounts of the death of John Caldwell published after the war. In one of those accounts, when the Governor was told of the events of the death of his son, "the Governor locked himself in his room and was all day in tears. He never told his wife" of the details "and told it only to his private secretary."

So as Caldwell sat in Raleigh, getting ready to head back to Burke County for "important business," he too well understood the "distress and suffering" of the war. His own family had been split, and his son, just 18 years old, was killed in the heat of battle in distant Pennsylvania.

Reconstructing the War-time Life of Tod R. Caldwell

Flip open John G. Barrett's The Civil War in North Carolina and you will find just one reference, per the index, to Tod R. Caldwell. Barrett quotes Caldwell in a March 1864 letter to Gov. Zebulon B. Vance, complaining about "men professing to be impressing agents from Longstreet's army and elsewhere are getting to be as thick in this community [Burke] as leaves in Vallambrosa." Caldwell adds that scarcely a week goes by without a new and hungrier group. (240-41)

Who was Tod R. Caldwell? The short answer would be that Caldwell was the 1st lieutenant governor of the state of North Carolina, and upon the impeachment W. W. Holden in July 1871, became the 41st Governor of North Carolina.

Caldwell was born in Morganton in February 1918. In 1840, he graduated from the University of North Carolina, and studied law under David L. Swain. He was admitted to practice law before the Superior Court in 1841.  Caldwell served in the House 1842-1846, and in 1850, represented Burke County in the state senate.

In pre-war politics, Caldwell was a Whig and opposed the movement to take the state out of the Union, lobbying hard for the Conservative Union party. In June 1860, the Weekly Raleigh Register reported that Caldwell spoke at a meeting in Morganton advocating the nomination of Bell and Everatt, Constitutional Unionist, for president and vice-president of the United States. In September 1860, he wrote: "Trusting that every friend of our beloved country, and every foe of Black Republicanism, Disunionism and Secession, will rally as one man around the National standard of Bell and Everett, with the war cry of "Death to Sectionalism" on their lips, I take my stand ready to do duty among the honest rank and file of the country, who alone are its real defenders in times of danger...."

Once North Carolina left the Union, Caldwell had a choice to make. It appears that he was nominated as the Presidential Elector for the 9th district in October 1861. After this nomination, Caldwell largely disappears from the public record during the war years. There is one account in the Raleigh Weekly Progress, May 10, 1864, in which W. W. Avery and Caldwell got into a debate about who would win the Confederate Congressional district: Leach or Foster.

 It was probably at the same time that Caldwell attended a rally in Morganton in which W. W. Avery nominated Zebulon Vance for re-election as governor of North Carolina. After several speakers, Caldwell asked to address the crowd, "and so thoroughly exposed these Vance leaders and Confederate officer-holders, that Mr. Avery himself was forced to come to the rescue." After Avery spoke for half an hour, Caldwell "then took him in hand and trimmed him in good style, especially in relation to his activity in bringing on the war and then in being so successful in keeping himself out of it. He also told him that two years ago he and his party were denouncing Gov. Vance in the most unmeasured terms, but now--all at once--he had a marvelously proper man, and was their first choice for Governor."

For the most part, it seems that Caldwell lay low during the war years. In his application for presidential pardon, penned in Burke County on July 25, 1865, he wrote that he was "opposed to the late Rebellion from its inception to its termination, but that, to avoid levies in the armies of the so-called "Confederate States," he accepted the officer of Solicitor for the county of Rutherford.... Your Petitioner would add that he canvassed his section of the state and opposed, upon the hirelings, the doctrine of secession and disunion to the best of his ability, and exacted every effort to prevent the call of the State  Convention which passed the ordinance of Secession; -that, during the existence of the said Rebellion, he actively opposed the David Usurpation -- indeed, so much so, that he was threatened by the Rebel leaders with the destruction of private property and personal violence." Caldwell was pardoned on August 14, 1865.

Caldwell's pronounced Unionism soon propelled his political prospects. Not only did he become president of the Western North Carolina Railroad, Caldwell became an aid to Governor Holden in July 1865.  He  represented Burke County in the Constitutional Convention In October 1865. He was recommended as a candidate for the US House in November 1865.

Caldwell went on to become the first lieutenant governor of the state of North Carolina. When Holden was impeached in 1871, Caldwell ran for governor in 1872 and barely won by a margin of 2,000 votes. While in office, he fell ill of a gall bladder attack, and died on July 10, 1874. 

So why my interest in Caldwell? At the Avery Museum, we have a desk that belonged to the governor. 

The Charge of General Lee (or did he?).

It is a familiar scene for those of us who study the War. General Lee, concerned about repairing the breach, twice appeared at the head of Confederate troops, prepared to lead them into the heat of the battle. At the Wilderness, it was at the head of the Texas brigade. During the morning fight at Spotsyvlvania Court House, almost a week later, it was Gordon's brigade of Georgians.

Yet, is there a third account that has gone unreported in the annuals of history.

Spotsylvania Court House marker

On the afternoon of May 12, Lee appeared along the line near Heth's Salient. He sent some of the Sharpshooters from Lane's North Carolina brigade forward to ascertain if a Federal battery was supported by infantry. Based upon the intelligence gathered, Lee chose to attack and capture the battery, and roll up Burnside's flank, if possible, relieving the pressure on the Mule Shoe. Lane's brigade, supported by Weisiger's brigade, moved out into the woods , capturing the battery and striking the flank of a new division of Burnside's men being launched towards the Confederate lines. Lane's attack was successful to a degree: the Federal guns were captured, although there was no way to bring them off the field, and Burnside's attack crumbled. Lane might have accomplished more if Weisiger had not become lost in the woods, firing into the rear of the North Carolinians.

Did Robert E. Lee, commander of the Army of Northern Virginia, lead Lane's attack?

Two post-war accounts lean in that direction.

Brig. Gen. James H. Lane wrote about his near capture on June 30, 1983: "That afternoon [May 12, 1864], in obedience to orders from General Lee and under his eye, we crossed the works and entered the oak woods, from which we drove the enemy's skirmishers, and attacked Burnside's corps in flank as it advanced to assault the salient. The General and staff and all of the regimental foot officers were on foot."

Two points about this account. One: Lane writes that they were under the "eye" of General Lee. That simply could mean that Lee watched the brigade advance over the works and into the woods, or that Lee had accompanied them further. Two: All throughout the article, Lane refers to himself in first person. "I was with that part of the line which swept over the Federal battery," he writes. Yet Lane tells us that "The General and staff and all of the regimental officers were on foot." He does not write "[I] and [my] staff and all of the regimental officers."

The second account comes from Octavious Wiggins, a lieutenant in the 37th North Carolina, and was written in 1903. Wiggins chronicles that the men were under artillery fire as they move over the works and into the woods. He then writes: "General Lee was riding very close to us at the time" that the attack started. (Clark, North Carolina Regiments, Vol. 2, 666.)

A third account, written by William W. Chamberlaine, a staff office under Lee, seems to dissuade me of the idea. He writes that as the attack was going forward (totally leaving out Lane, who did the lion's share of the work), Confederate artillery opened fire on Burnside's men, and Lane's brigade got caught up in it. Chamberlaine writes that "soon we saw General Lee galloping on the road towards us. Shells were dropping in the road, but he reached us in safety. He directed General Early to have the Batteries cease firing." Chamberlaine's account was published in 1912.

Three accounts: two that lend support to the idea that Lee was close by Lane's brigade during the attack, and third stating he was not. Sure wish I could find something from 1864 to confirm either account. 

Two points of view - 7th NCT vs. 66th NYV in the Wilderness

So many times, in writing about battles, the sources with which I have to work are very vague. We attacked here, or charged, or were fired upon, etc. We get the skeleton version or outline of what happened. While working on the role of Lane's brigade during the battle of the Wilderness, I came upon two accounts that give us a little more.

To lay our scene:

Wilderness battlefield

May 5, 1864 - It's dark and smoke hangs in the air. Lane's brigade has been ordered forward to try and stabilize the Confederate line near the Orange Plank Road. The 7th North Carolina, on Lane's left, has been cautioned that there are Confederate troops in their front. Capt. James G. Harris, writing on September 8, 1864, fills us in on the details of what happens next: "At this time owing to the darkness, smoke and density of the swamp, it was impossible to distinguish friend from foe. After remaining here for some time, it was discovered that a column was moving towards the plank road on our left, but supposing it to be McGowan's brigade little attention was paid it until our left wing having arrived within a few paces of it was ordered to surrender, and almost at the same instant, a destructive volley was poured into the regiment, which created some confusion." Harris goes on, in his 1893 account, to tell us that it was the 66th New York Volunteers that fired into the 7th North Carolina.

Lt. Simon Pincus wrote the official report of the 66th New York on September 10, 1864, two days after Harris drafted his. Pincus tells us that his regiment was "deployed in line of battle in the woods on the right of the Third brigade. The line was scarcely formed when the rebels came marching by the flank in front of my regiment, distant about 10 paces. It being dark, they were at first mistaken for friends, but the illusion was soon dispelled, and Lieutenant-Colonel Hammell gave the order to fire, which was promptly executed with fatal effect. It proved to be the Seventh North Carolina, commanded by Lieutenant-Colonel Davidson, who was captured..."

Two points of view, one Confederate and the other Federal, of the same dark moments in the Wilderness.

Three flags

For many years, the people of North Carolina have been responsible for raising the funds to see to it that Confederate flags, entrusted to the state so many decades ago, are being preserved for future generations. Over the past decade, I've had the chance to stand beside many of these flags and to speak about their regiments. It is a huge honor.

To my knowledge, there are two flag preservation projects underway right now within the state.

For the past few months, the North Carolina Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans has been raising funds to preserve the battle flag of the 54th North Carolina Troops. It is possible that the flag was captured on November 7, 1863. The curators at the North Carolina Museum of History believe that the damaged section was caused by Federal soldiers snipping pieces as war trophies. The pictured flag was first sent to the War Department, then to Maine, and finally, through the work of Fredericks Olds, was returned to North Carolina in 1927. For more information, please visit the NC SCV website.

The second flag, recently announced by the 26th North Carolina Troops, Reactivated, is the headquarters flag of the Brig. Gen. Lawrence O. Branch. No greater group of men and women has done more to make sure items in the North Carolina Museum's collection are preserved than the fine folks in the 26th NCT. This flag was the headquarters flag of General Branch, a pre-war congressional leader who also led the defense of New Bern in March 1862. The battle was a Confederate loss. Branch went on to command a brigade in the Light Division, Army of Northern Virginia. He was killed at the end of the battle of Shaprsburg. The flag started home with his body, but was left in Winchester and discovered years later. In 1920, it was placed in the North Carolina Hall of History/North Carolina Museum of History. If you are interested in helping to see that it is conserved, please visit this link.

The third flag is a company-level flag belonging to the 6th North Carolina State Troops. Early in the war, companies were often presented flags before they left their communities and headed to a camp of instruction. This flag was presented to the North Carolina Grays, in Morrisville, on June 1, 1862. The North Carolina Grays later became Company I, of the 6th NCST, and consisted of men from Wake and Chatham Counties. According to information at the North Carolina Museum of History, this flag was captured by Federal soldiers from Ohio in a baggage wagon, in the fall of 1863. It was returned to North Carolina after the close of the war. Friends in the Cedar Fork Rifles Preservation Society are raising funds to preserve this flag. The flag of the North Carolina Grays is made of silk, and silk flags take considerably more funds to conserve than wool bunting banners. You can find more information about this project by visiting the Cedar Fork Rifles Preservation Society here. 

War-Time Weddings

While reading Chaplain Francis Kennedy's diary today, I came across this, written on July 22, 1863: "We marched about 19 miles and camped near Front Royal. Corp'l. Biles of Co. K, 28th Regiment, married in the place as we passed through going north. Poor girl; [t]he battle of Gettysburg made her a widow. He was killed in the unsuccessful charge on the enemy's work."

Wait? What? Married as the regiment passed through town? Who? What? Where? Time to use the internet to see what we can find.

The where is easy - Front Royal. Got that. The who: William A. C. Biles, born in Stanley County, North Carolina. The other who was Mary Catherine Strother. They were indeed wed on June 20, 1863.

But Biles did not die at Gettysburg. He was seriously wounded and captured. Later paroled, Biles was transferred to the invalid corps. Biles survived the war and later went to Lincoln County, Oklahoma, where he applied for a Confederate pension. He died in 1915, and is buried in Oklahoma.

That's all really cool, but I want to know more - did they know each other prior to the war? Was this a whirlwind romance? I was able to find so much about this story in such a short time, but, I still have questions. Surely this story was passed down through the family. 

Was Colonel Barber Present at Gettysburg?

Pick up any order of battle for Confederate forces commanding at Gettysburg, and Col. William Barber, of the 37th North Carolina Troops, is not listed as being in command of the regiment during the battle. He was wounded at Chancellorsville, and, according to the North Carolina Troop  books, he did not return until "prior to September 1, 1863." Instead, many believe that the regiment was commanded by Lt. Col. William G. Morris, who was captured on July 3, 1863.

But I'm still not convinced. And here is why.

General Lane drafted his official report on August 13, 1863. Concerning the attack of Lane's brigade on the afternoon of July 1, the General writes, "We then moved forward about a mile, and as the Seventh Regiment had been detained a short time, Colonel Barbour threw out 40 men, under Captain [D. L.] Hudson, to keep back some of the enemy's cavalry....." Lane mentions Baber one other time, toward the close of the report, writing that "Colonel Barbour, of the Thirty-seventh, refers to his heavy loss as sufficient evidence of the gallantry of his command." Lane  never mentions Lieutenant Colonel Morris. These sources all come from the Official Records, Volume 27, pat. 2, page 664-668.

My second piece of evidence comes from the letter of Capt. Thomas L. Norwood of Company A, 37th North Carolina. Norwood was wounded and captured on July 3, and a couple of days later, escaped. Norwood arrived back within Confederate lines on July 12, and even had breakfast with Robert E. Lee. The general quizzed him about what he had seen on his sojourn through Federal lines. Norwood was in a hospital in Richmond when he wrote his father a letter about his adventures. In this letter, dated July 16, 1863, Norwood writes that after his breakfast with Lee, he "reported to Col. Barber who sent me to the hospital here at Richmond."

One final piece of evidence to consider: Lieutenant Morris was held as a prisoner of war until March 22, 1865, and never rejoined the regiment. On October 1, 1877, he wrote a letter to the Raleigh Observer about his Gettysburg experiences. At no point in the letter does Morris mention Barber, but at the same time, Morris never mentions being in command of the regiment. He does write: "I was Lieut. Colonel of my regiment." I would think that had he been in command, he would have noted it.

So there you have it, why I feel that Barber was in command of the 37th North Carolina at Gettysburg. Do you agree or disagree?

PS: Is it Barber or Barbour? The family spells it Barber. About half way through the war, it is clear that Barber started signing his correspondence Barbour. However, when it came time to erect a tombstone, the family went with Barber.

PSS - I found another piece. Barber endorsed the resignation letter of Lt. Thomas Kerns on May 17, 1863. Yet another piece, in my opinion, that points that Barber was present in this time frame. 

Died by reason of.....

I don't like math. Math was the reason it took me so long to finish my undergraduate degree. However, I find myself doing a lot of number crunching as I work on books - how many soldiers came from a township, how many died, ages, etc. I guess this makes my books better. But remember, the next time you glance over a couple of sentences with numbers and the material interests you, it took several days for me to string those two or three sentences together.

For the past week, I've been working on when and how men from the Branch-Lane brigade died while being prisoners of war. Those captured in 1862 at New Bern or Hanover Court House were most likely to die of typhoid. Those captured in 1863 at Gettysburg or later, after the prisoner cartel exchange came to a crashing close, were most likely to died of chronic diarrhea at first, and then as we get into the winter months, of pneumonia. Added to this were a few cases of smallpox, heart disease, pleurisy, and even scurvy. Of those incarcerated, 5% died of typhoid, 39% of chronic diarrhea, and 15% of pneumonia.

What really bothers me are those who died as prisoners of war after the war "ended." If I look at the date that Lee surrendered - April 9 (Yes, I know, not really the end of the war), I find forty men who died of some type of illness of disease. Sad. 

Confederate POWs at Fairfax, Virginia. (Library of Congress)